PF preferences: 

1. No spreading. I will flow the round. If I can't understand or miss something, I can't evaluate it. 

2.  I'm a lawyer, so please make your arguments logical and provide strong evidence.

3. If you're speaking first, I do not require that you extend defense in your summary. However, second summary needs to extend defense. 

4. Both teams should weigh the debate. 

5. Please keep crossfires civil. 

6. Make all of your link stories clear and show how they lead to your impacts. If the link chain doesn't make sense, I won't evaluate the impact.

7. I won't evaluate arguments that are dropped. You don't need to respond to a dropped argument or extend any responses on this.

8. It shouldn't take you more than a minute to find a card. 

9. Unless it's critical for the debate, keep theory out. Your arguments should be about the topic itself. 

Bio: I am a graduate of and debated 4 yrs of NPDA for Point Loma Nazarene University and served as Assistant Director of Debate at Grand Canyon University. I currently serve as Head Coach at iLearn Academy and still judge around the NPDA circuit.

Updated LD Philosophy: I enjoy and can keep up with spreading. But this quick whisper-mumbling stuff is nonsense. If you think a. that's really spreading b. what you're saying is intelligible, you're kidding yourself. You can go fast but you gotta up the clarity. Forcing me to read all of your cards instead of listening to the speech to understand is asking me to do way too much work and I must infer any analysis being given. It also makes it significantly harder for me to understand the nuances of how the arguments interact and I would prefer not to miss something important.

TL;DR: I strongly believe that I don't have any strong beliefs when it comes to debate rounds, I ran all types of arguments and faced all types of arguments. I see every round as an individual game and don't try to leverage my preferences into my decisions. Go for what you will. I won't complain.

Speed: Speed is usually fine depending on your clarity. I have more comments about it in the LD section. Online, depending on how fast you are maybe 80% is better in case you want me to get everything.

Theory/Framework: These are fine. I include this to say, that I don't mind your squirrely or K aff, but I'm more than willing to listen to the other side and you should be prepared to respond to framework or theory.

K's: K's are great. K's have a place in debate. I enjoy K's because I believe I can learn from them. The only issue is I am not great at being strong on critical literature bases. I believe that people who resent that type of debate altogether are stuck in an ultimately noneducational way of thinking. That being said, I'm not afraid to vote on "this doesn't make any sense". Just because it's a game doesn't mean it shouldn't be accessible.

I will say if I had to choose between the 2 I'd rather have a straight-up policy round.

CP: Just do it right if you're gonna do it? idk the goal is not to get permed right?

Condo: I don't see condo as an issue. I won't forbid myself from voting for condo bad if it's argued for well enough or the strategy really is being that abusive. Some people have ideologies, but I think that's more of a meme at this point.

I am not a big fan of RVI's at all. I will only look to vote for one if it was unresponded to or within a unique context. But my least favorite and seemingly most common is spending X amount of minutes on a frivolous T, then saying you deserve the win for wasting your own time. If it is truly frivolous then either they won't go for it or they'll lose on it if they do. I will not reward it and I find it surprising at the number of judges who don't think twice about it.

Speaker points: I'm not a fan of speaker points so I plan on being a bit of a point fairy

Elizabeth Pak is has been a licensed attorney in California since 1994.

She has judged speech and debate tournaments.

Experienced Parli and PoFo debater. Seven years coaching and judging parli/pofo/LD at high school level. Flow judge.

Tabula Rasa judge, I will make a conscious effort not to bring preconceived notions about evidence/analysis into the round. Source credibility matters. Not a fan of spreading, please don't gish galIop your opponents and try to act like it's credible. I'll allow some spreading, especially in LD, but if I can't understand you that only counts against you. I dislike complicated theory arguments, I don't necessarily believe they are appropriate for the high school level 90% of the time, but I will judge them if I have to (but know that I will not like it). I appreciate clear voters in final speeches, tell me why I should vote for you.

PoFo:

I weigh style and argumentation equally. Arguments should be valid and presented clearly. Extend arguments across the flow. If you drop an argument and your opponent notes it, I will consider it dropped by you. I prefer analytics to evidence, but any good analysis has to be based off something. If you raise new arguments in crossfire, please reaffirm them in your speech. Make sure you adhere to your framework, if you set a value I want to see you support it.

LD:

I expect to see value/value criterion that your evidence/analysis can support. Framework debate is important but I will favor the case over it unless the framework is an absolute dealbreaker. While I think theoretical arguments are interesting, I would prefer that the debate remain in the realm of evidence/analysis as much as possible. Plans and counterplans are acceptable, but I'll be harsh if you run a kritik. If you're going to pull something like that at a high school level you better make it immaculate and understandable.

Parli:

I judge heavily on weighing mechanism in Parli rounds when applicable. I do not expect WM in fact-based rounds. I appreciate definitional creativity but I dislike debates that get bogged down at the top of the flow in theoretical worlds. I prefer analysis over evidence, but I understand that some variations of Parli require an emphasis on evidence. Do not spread, I do not believe it belongs in Parli. Try to maintain decorum during POIs, do not abuse the mechanic.


Policy:

I am not an experienced Policy judge. Analysis matters over evidence and I'll try my best.

I did four years of competitive Policy Debate in high school (many years ago), including national circuit tournaments and NFL Nationals; the use of kritiks was only just beginning, even in Policy, which back then was referred to as CX. But, and perhaps as a consequence, I am more of a traditionalist when it comes to LD (and other non-Policy Debate). Policy Debate techniques/arguments/strategies, such as counterplans, generic disadvantages, and kritiks, are therefore disfavored.

Spreading is okay, as long as (a) I can understand you; (b) you don't sound like you're hyperventilating; and (c) your purpose isn't to overload your opponent with a large quantity of arguments in hopes they'll drop one. In a competition between quailty and quantity, quality wins every time for me. If I can't understand you, it's unlikely your argument or card will end up on my flow pad.

It's important you explain why your value is superior to your opponent's, and that you link your contentions to your framework, and in particular your value. This should be done throughout the round, including in the final Rebuttals.

Warrants are of course important but simply regurgitating what some "expert" said will not go far; you must explain your contentions and sub-points and why your opponent's arguments are wrong. It's easy to read a card; it's much harder to elaborate, contextualize and put the argument in your own words.

Please avoid acronyms, abbreviations and jargon.

One final comment. If you care about your speaker points, be respectful and courteous to your opponent.